11 views

Uploaded by Cristina Andreea Bitir

DSM

- composites
- 105-s55
- Effect of a Retaining Wall Supported Berm on the Stability of Tailings Dam
- 1
- A 072815
- NZS 3404-1997 Example 001
- Cohesive strength of clay‐rich sediment
- Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Under Monotonic Loads
- Terramechanics
- A Simple Seismic Performance Assessment Technique for Unreinforced Brick Masonry Structures [Tuğla Yığma Yapılar Için Basit Bir Deprem Performansı Değerlendirme Yöntemi]
- Slope Paper
- TriaxialTest
- ABB_Manual_10E_01_print_03.pdf
- Analysis Manual Masonry
- Assignment 1
- UBC_1966_A7 B9
- Vane Shear Test_lab Manual
- Exercise Set 6.2.pdf
- Strength of Materials - Wikiversity
- 1-s2.0-S2352012417300607-main

You are on page 1of 12

Alex Reeb, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, reeba@vt.edu

Alex Grenoble, HDR Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA, alex.grenoble@hdrinc.com

Farzad Abedzadeh, HDR Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA, farzad.abedzadehanaraki@hdrinc.com

ABSTRACT

This paper summarizes available information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soilcement produced by the wet method. The topics covered in this paper include: unit weight, unconfined

compressive strength, strength variability for field mixed materials, influence of curing time, influence of

consolidation pressure, Youngs modulus, differences in strength and stiffness between small and large

samples, creep deformations, Poissons ratio, and tensile strength. In addition, this paper discusses the

development of design considerations and recommended property values for a project that uses soilcement to protect an existing dam penstock from loads applied by an overlying stability berm. Some of

the key recommendations for the deep-mixed soil-cement to be used in this project are that (1) a curved

strength envelope that includes tensile strength can be used in the analysis, (2) the stress-strain and

strength properties can be characterized using Duncan and Chang's (1970) hyperbolic model, and (3) a

specification based on the median unconfined compressive strength value is appropriate.

Keywords: deep mixing, soil-cement, modulus, stiffness, strength, creep, tension, specifications

INTRODUCTION

For many projects, including foundation and embankment support, deep mixing can be designed based on

simplified procedures and following standardized guidelines (e.g., FHWA 2013). However for unusually

complex or critical projects, it is often necessary to perform numerical analyses, and in order to perform

these numerical analyses well, a thorough understanding of the material properties is needed.

This paper summarizes information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soil-cement

produced by the wet method, and it discusses the development of design considerations and

recommended property values for a specific project, herein referred to as the penstock project, that

requires numerical analyses. For the penstock project, a horseshoe-shaped enclosure of soil-cement is

being considered beside and above an existing dam penstock to protect it from loads applied by an

overlying stability berm that will be constructed for seismic remediation. The concept is to use soilcement created by the deep mixing method along the sides of the penstock and to use compacted soilcement above the deep mixing to create the crown of the protective soil-cement zone around the penstock.

For this application, the soil-cement stiffness, rather than its strength, is the controlling design parameter.

To achieve the necessary soil-cement stiffness, the strength will be high enough that the factor-of-safety

values against instability along potential failure surfaces passing through the soil-cement are high.

Following conventional practice, the soil-cement acceptance criteria will be based on the unconfined

compressive strength, and the specified strength will be selected to produce the desired modulus value.

Although the information in this paper was developed for a project focused on deformation control, it

may also be useful for projects whose objective is improving bearing capacity and stability, with

appropriate consideration of those failure modes.

823

This section presents information from published literature as well as recent and current projects on the

characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soil-cement. The following topics are discussed: unit weight,

unconfined compressive strength, strength variability for field mixed materials, influence of curing time,

influence of consolidation pressure, Youngs modulus, differences in strength and stiffness between small

and large samples, creep deformations, Poissons ratio, and tensile strength. Additional information on

these topics is included in FHWA (2013) and other sources.

Unit weight

For the wet method of deep mixing, Kitazume and Terashi (2013) and Filz et al. (2012) indicate that the

change in unit weight due to mixing is generally small enough to ignore. However, mixing could produce

a decrease in the unit weight if the following are relatively large: the initial unit weight of the soil, the

water-to-cement ratio of the slurry, the ratio of the volume of slurry to the volume of the soil to be mixed,

and the area replacement ratio. Phase relationships provided by Hodges et al. (2008) can be used to

calculate the final unit weight of the mixture, if a more accurate estimate is deemed necessary.

Unconfined compressive strength

Numerous factors influence the strength of deep-mixed soil-cement, including: soil type, binder type,

binder amount, water-to-binder ratio, mixing thoroughness, curing time, curing conditions, and loading

conditions.

Values of unconfined compression strength, UCS, of laboratory-mixed specimens up to about 4,000 psi

have been reported for wet mixing, depending on the base soil type and the binder type and amount, with

typical values in the range of 100 psi to 300 psi and the highest values for wet mixing occurring when

sand soils are mixed using high binder factors and low total-water-to-cement ratios (JGS 2000).

Given all of the factors that affect the strength of treated soils, the Japanese Coastal Development Institute

of Technology (CDIT 2002) indicates that it is not possible to predict within a reasonable level of

accuracy the strength that will result from adding a particular amount of binder to a given soil based on

the in-situ characteristics of the soil. Consequently, laboratory mix design studies must be performed

using soils obtained from a project site. Field trials are also common.

Strength variability for field mixed materials

Observed values of coefficients of variation of UCS of field mixed soil-cement range from about 0.3 to

0.8, and the distribution is generally log-normal (Larsson 2005, Filz and Navin 2010). Recent projects in

New Orleans have produced coefficients of variation of about 0.4. Specifications for deep mixing

generally require that 80% or 90% of the measured UCS values equal or exceed the specified value. For a

log-normal distribution with a coefficient of variation equal to 0.4, the median value of the measured

strengths is about two times the specified strength when 80% of the measured values exceed the specified

UCS.

Filz et al. (2012) recommend use of a variability factor to account for the relatively high variability of

strength measurements of cored specimens of field-mixed soil-cement compared to the variability of

strength for naturally deposited soils. For a typical set of system variables, this factor could range from

about 0.5 to 1.0. The variability factor was developed to achieve reliability against shear failure of an

entire soil-cement foundation system.

824

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) report data demonstrating a linear increase in the strength of soil-cement

mixtures with the logarithm of time. Several of these data sets extend for years, including one data set

extending to 20 years.

Filz et al. (2012) evaluated the influence of curing time from a large number of studies reported in the

literature and proposed that the ratio of the unconfined compressive strength, UCS, at times greater than

28 days to the UCS at 28 days can be conservatively estimated as 0.187*ln(t) + 0.375, where t is the time

in days after mixing. This relationship is near the lower bound of data for cement and cement-slag blends

mixed with a wide variety of soil types using the wet method of deep mixing. An important exception is

that some organic soils mixed with cement without slag exhibit very low rates of strength gain with time.

Influence of consolidation pressure

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) present data from unconfined compression tests in comparison to results

from consolidated-undrained and consolidated-drained triaxial tests. The test results show that

consolidation pressure does not have a significant effect on peak strength until consolidation pressure

exceeds about 1.3 times the UCS for undrained tests and about 0.2 times the UCS for drained tests.

Unconfined compression tests on soil-cement mixtures typically exhibit large reductions in post-peak

strength. The comparative test results presented by Kitazume and Terashi (2013) exhibit peak strength at

a strain less than 1% in unconfined compression tests, with a reduction to about 20% of the peak strength

at strains of about 3% to 5%. However, in consolidated-drained tests, the post-peak strength loss was

much less, with large-strain strengths about 50% of the peak UCS for consolidation pressures of 10% to

20% of the UCS. In consolidated-undrained tests, the large-strain strengths were 80% or more of the UCS,

for confining pressures as low as 1% of the UCS.

Consolidation pressures had very little effect on modulus values for the test data shown by Kitazume and

Terashi (2013).

Youngs modulus

Young's modulus values from unconfined compression tests on soil-cement mixtures are often reported in

terms of E50, which is the secant modulus at 50% of the UCS. Modulus data typically exhibit a high

degree of scatter, and it is not always reported whether the modulus values are determined from

displacement of end platens or from "local" strain measurements in which the transducer is mounted

directly on the specimen. Local strain measurements generally produce higher values of modulus than

end-platen measurements due to compliance at the ends of the specimens resulting from ends that are not

completely planar and parallel. Because soil-cement mixtures have high modulus values with

correspondingly small strains, a small amount of compliance at the ends of specimens can have a big

effect on modulus values determined from end-platen measurements.

For soil-cement mixtures created by the wet method of deep mixing, Topolniki (2012) reports that E50 is

about 380 times UCS, Filz et al. (2012) report that E50 is about 300 times UCS, and Kitazume and Terashi

(2013) report that E50 ranges from about 350 to 1,000 times UCS. The data analyzed by Topolniki (2012)

and Filz et al. (2012) are believed to be from end-platen measurements, but the type of strain

measurements used to generate the data reported by Kitazume and Terashi (2013) were not specified.

Denies et al. (2014) provide data from five deep mixing projects in Belgium for which modulus values are

reported using both local strain gage measurements and end-platen measurements. The average ratio of

825

modulus values from local strain gage measurements to modulus values from end-platen measurements

for these tests is 1.8. It appears that these modulus values were determined from cyclic tests conducted

using a relatively small change in deviator stress and after many cycles of loading, which represents a

highly specialized test condition in which some end compaction may be removed from the comparison.

Research currently underway at Virginia Tech involves laboratory testing of sandy lean clay mixed with

cement-water slurry. The results of unconfined compression tests produce E50/UCS values of about 800 to

900 from local strain gage measurements and about 180 from end-platen measurements. According to the

local strain measurements, the strain at 50% of the UCS is 0.05% to 0.08%, and the strain at peak strength

is 0.15% to 0.6%. These tests are for UCS values in the range from 200 to 700 psi, and the strains at 50%

of UCS and at peak strength appear to be independent of UCS. The strain at peak strength is typically

about five times the strain at 50% of UCS.

The lead author recently worked on a project in Burnaby, British Columbia, in which unconfined

compression tests with local strain measurements were performed on wet mixed specimens formed from

predominately silty soils. For these tests, the ratio of E50/UCS ranged from 350 to 680, with an average

value of 550. The strain at 50% of the UCS was 0.07% to 0.14%, and the strain at peak strength was

0.23% to 0.55%. These tests were for UCS values in the range from 200 to 800 psi. The strain at peak

strength was about four times the strain at 50% of UCS.

Laboratory mixing test programs were performed using soils from the penstock project site, which are

described as residual silty sand. There is scatter in the data, but the results from UCS tests indicate an

E50/UCS value of about 625 from local strain gage measurements and about 300 from end-platen

measurements. According to the local strain measurements, the typical strain to 50% of the UCS was

about 0.08%, and the typical strain to failure values was about 0.5%. These tests were for UCS values in

the range from 400 to 900 psi. The strain at peak strength was about six times the strain to 50% of the

UCS. This result is similar to that for the recent construction project in British Colombia and the current

research at Virginia Tech described previously.

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) present a plot showing the strain to failure typically ranging from about 1%

to 2% for cement treated soil. These strains are larger than those from the local strain measurements

described above.

Differences in strength and stiffness between small and large samples

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) present a comparison of the UCS of core samples with the strength of entire

columns that had been removed from the ground and tested in unconfined compression. The UCS of the

full-scale columns was about 70% of the UCS of core samples. Kitazume and Terashi (2013) do not

present results comparing modulus values of entire columns and core specimens.

Denies et al. (2014) summarized results from testing done in Belgium in which the results of unconfined

compression tests on 10-cm diameter core specimens were compared with tests on approximately 50-cm

by 50-cm blocks trimmed from deep-mixed elements that were extracted from the ground. The UCS of

the large blocks was about 70% of the UCS of the core samples. Denies et al. (2014) also determined

modulus values of the large blocks by measuring displacements of points about 40 cm apart along the

longitudinal axes of the blocks. The average of the ratios of the modulus values from the large blocks to

the modulus values from the core specimens using local strain gages is 1.12, indicating a slight increase in

modulus values for the large blocks in comparison to the modulus values for the core specimens.

A related piece of information is that Vervoot et al. (2012) performed a numerical study of the influence

of inclusions of unmixed material on the strength of soil-cement. The results are that small percentages of

826

unmixed soil inclusions produced relatively large decreases in strength but relatively small decreases in

modulus. This suggests that the stiffness of a large mass of soil-cement with unmixed inclusions may not

be much different from the stiffness of small samples relatively free of unmixed inclusions.

Creep deformations

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) provide data showing linear decreases in the logarithm of strain rate with

increasing logarithm of time for soil-cement specimens in unconfined compression subject to constant

stress. The strain rates increase as the stress level increases, but log-strain-rate-versus-log-time lines are

parallel for all stress levels, except for a test with an applied stress equal to 91% of the strength, in which

case failure occurred after a few minutes of load application.

Based on this information and knowledge about the initial stress strain response of the soil-cement, the

effect of long-term creep deformations can be calculated. For a soil-cement specimen that is loaded to a

constant stress that is 50% of the UCS, the data from Kitazume and Terashi (2013) show the long-term

creep strain is 0.04%. If the short-term strain in laboratory tests is 0.08% at 50% of UCS, as typically

occurred for the penstock project, and if creep then produces an additional strain of 0.04%, the long-term

modulus is reduced to 67% of the short-term modulus.

Poisson's ratio

Topolniki (2012) recommends values of Poisson's ratio in the range from 0.3 to 0.4. Kitazume and

Terashi (2013) report values of Poisson's ratio from about 0.25 to 0.5.

Tensile strength

In this paper, tensile stresses and strengths are assigned negative values, and the ratio of the absolute

value of the tensile strength to the UCS, |t|/UCS, is positive, where t is the tensile strength.

According to the Deep Mixing section of a 1997 report by the ASCE Soil Improvement and

Geosynthetics Committee (Schaefer et al. 1997), the tensile strength obtained from split tension tests

(Brazilian tension tests) is smaller in magnitude than the tensile strength obtained from direct uniaxial

tension tests. The report also indicates that, for UCS values less than about 850 psi, split tension tests

produce values of |t|/UCS in the range from 0.08 to 0.14.

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) summarize information from a few investigations of the strength of soilcement created by the deep mixing method:

For cement-treated and quicklime-treated soils with an initial water content of 100% to 200%, Terashi

et al. (1980) found that the value of |t|/UCS from split tension tests was about 0.15 for UCS values

up to about 1.5 MPa (220 psi). The tensile strength magnitude increased much less rapidly as the UCS

increased above 1.5 MPa. For the same soils, bending tests resulted in values of |t|/UCS in the range

of 0.1 to 0.6 for UCS values up to about 3 MPa (440 psi).

Namikawa and Koseki (2007) investigated the tensile strength of Toyoura sand stabilized with

cement and bentonite. For UCS values ranging up to about 5 MPa (730 psi), they found |t|/UCS

values of about 0.08 to 0.30 from split tension tests, 0.07 to 0.20 from direct tension tests, and 0.15 to

0.51 from bending tests.

Saitoh et al. (1996) investigated the tensile strength of laboratory-mixed and field-mixed soils. The

laboratory mixed soils had sand contents ranging from 0% to 13%. For UCS values up to about 5

MPa (730 psi), the |t|/UCS values were about 0.1 for split tension tests, and |t|/UCS decreased from

827

about 0.3 to 0.1 for direct tension tests as the UCS values increased. For the field mixed soils, the

values of |t|/UCS from split tension tests ranged from about 0.06 to 0.2 for sandy and clayey soils.

For deep mixed soils, Terashi and Kitazume (2013) recommend that the design tensile strength can be

taken as -15% of the design UCS, with a limiting tensile strength of -200 kPa (-30 psi).

Denies et al. (2012) performed tensile splitting tests on deep mixed soil specimens from five projects in

Belgium and found that the value of |t|/UCS is about 0.11 for UCS values up to about 15 MPa (2,200

psi). Although the data exhibit substantial scatter, there does not appear to be a decrease in the |t|/UCS

value as the UCS strength increases.

Research currently underway at Virginia Tech involves testing of sandy lean clay mixed in the laboratory

with cement-water slurry. As shown in Fig. 1, the value of |t|/UCS from split tension tests is about 0.2

for UCS values in the range from about 150 to 700 psi. The specimens used in the tests whose results are

shown in Fig. 1 were very thoroughly mixed in the laboratory using a base soil that was fabricated to be

easy to mix, and these factors may have contributed to the very small amount of scatter in the data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140

-160

Fig. 1. Tension splitting test results versus UCS on samples of sandy lean clay mixed with watercement slurry

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the information presented in the previous section and based on laboratory mix tests using soils

from the penstock project site, recommendations are provided for the analysis of the deep-mixed soilcement. These recommendations include property values for the soil-cement unit weight, strength, and

stiffness, as well as specification guidance. This section lists some of the design considerations and

provides the recommendations for the penstock project.

Considerations in selecting design values

The recommendations were developed for use in deterministic analyses. Some of the considerations in

selecting design values include:

The purpose of the strength variability factor is to achieve reliability against collapse. Since the

objective of the deep mixing at the penstock project is to limit deformations and because the

replacement ratio will be nearly 100%, it was judged that the variability factor did not need to be

applied.

828

It may be reasonable to consider strength gain resulting from curing times greater than 28 days for

projects where the full design load is not applied until more than 28 days after mixing. Most of the

new embankment load at the penstock project may not be applied until more than 28 days after

mixing. However, the strength of the soil-cement will not be the controlling factor for design. Instead,

the stress-strain properties will control design, and the 28-day strength can be used as an index for the

stress-strain properties for design. Ordinarily, 28-day strengths are also used as the basis for accepting

construction work. For these reasons, only 28-day strengths were considered for the penstock project.

Projects with large uncertainty in the loading conditions and/or large consequences of failure should

be designed using large factors of safety and/or large strength reduction factors. For the penstock

project, conservative criteria have been adopted for the allowable penstock loads, so realistic

properties of the deep-mixed soil-cement are being used for the analyses.

Field mixing may not be as thorough as laboratory mixing, particularly for hard-to-mix soils like

plastic clays. Unmixed inclusions in field-mixed soil may serve as crack initiation points with low

compressive and tensile strengths. Thoroughness of field mixing depends on the mixing equipment

and procedures, as well as the mix proportions. At the penstock project, the soils are sandy, and

thorough mixing with good QC/QA procedures is anticipated.

Repetitive shear panels and mass stabilization of large areas in field applications would tend to

mitigate the likelihood that occasional inclusions of unmixed material would reduce the tensile

strength of the treated soil system. For field applications that use isolated columns, inclusions of

unmixed materials could significantly reduce the tensile strength of individual columns. The penstock

project involves mass stabilization of a large area.

The authors are not aware of any tensile testing of soil-cement using fast loading rates. Rapid loading

of concrete does produce an increase in tensile strength. It seems likely that rapid loading of soilcement, such as could occur during earthquake shaking, would produce an increase in tensile strength.

A fundamental difference between tensile strength and compressive strength is that there is no

residual tensile strength after tensile failure occurs, whereas there is some residual compressive

strength at post-peak compressive strains, particularly when the soil-cement is subject to confining

pressure. Additional information on the strain softening behavior of soil-cement is presented by

Kitazume and Terashi (2013) and included in FHWA (2013).

Laboratory and field verification testing, as well as the deep mixing contractors ability to adapt

procedures for variability in soil and environmental conditions, are essential to the success of deep

mixing construction projects.

Considering these issues and others identified by Kitazume and Terashi (2013) and FHWA (2013), the

following recommendations are made for the penstock project.

Unit weight

The same unit weight is recommended for the soil-cement as is estimated for the original untreated

ground.

Strength

Compressive strength

Based on the information presented previously and consistent with usual practice for design of deep

mixing support systems constructed using the wet method, the strength of soil-cement can be

characterized using a shear strength that is independent of confining pressure, with a total-normal-stress

friction angle of zero. The cohesion intercept can be calculated as one-half of 70% of the small-sample

UCS. The factor of one-half is to provide the shear strength from the UCS, and the factor of 0.7 is to

provide the mass strength in terms of the small-sample strength.

829

Based on the laboratory test results using soil from the penstock project, a small-scale UCS within the

range from 300 to 600 psi can be selected for the penstock project. Applying the mass strength factor to

the small-scale UCS for this project indicates that a suitable range of design shear strengths is

0.5*0.7*(300 to 600 psi) = 100 psi to 200 psi.

Tensile strength

The data summarized previously exhibit substantial variation in the values of tensile strength and in the

ratio of tensile strength to unconfined compression strength, |t|/UCS. Because no tensile tests were

performed on soil-cement specimens fabricated from penstock project materials and because tensile

failure is a brittle phenomenon, a conservative value of |t|/UCS equal to 0.12 is recommended for design

of the deep-mixed soil-cement at the penstock project.

Shape of strength envelope including tension

For a direct tension test, the corresponding Mohr's circle has a minor principal stress equal to t, and a

major principle stress equal to zero. To properly represent this condition, the strength envelope should

follow a circular shape beginning at the tensile strength, and then transition to an envelope that represents

the shear strength in the compression zone (Mike Duncan, personal communication, Nov. 2014). One

such strength envelope is shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2 presents a strength envelope with a friction angle, , of zero, UCS = 600 psi, and |t|/UCS = 0.12.

As the normal stress increases, this strength envelope begins with a circular shape at the tensile strength,

followed by a straight-line segment that is tangent to the direct tension Mohr's circle and the unconfined

compression Mohr's circle, then a circular shape around a portion of the unconfined compression Mohr's

circle, and finally a horizontal straight-line continuation defined by the cohesion intercept, c, and a

friction angle, , of zero. The inclination, t, and the cohesion intercept, ct, of the straight-line portion of

the envelope tangent to and between the tension and unconfined compression Mohr's circles are given by:

f

1 | |

arcsin 1

[1]

| | tan f

1 | |

[2]

Based on Eqns. 1 and 2, if UCS = 600 psi, = 0, and |t|/UCS = 0.12, this produces t = -72 psi, ct = 104

psi, and t = 52 deg. The corresponding strength envelope is shown in Fig. 2.

The strength envelope characteristics shown in Fig. 2 are recommended for the deep-mixed soil-cement at

the penstock project, with the particular parameter values selected as part of the design process.

Depending on the capabilities of the computer programs used to perform the analyses, it may be

necessary to simplify the curved strength envelope described here and/or divide the soil-cement into

zones for which different portions of the strength envelopes are applicable.

830

400

Strength Envelope

300

200

Unconfined Compression

Mohr's Circle

Direct Tension

Mohr's Circle

100

0

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Fig. 2. Proposed example strength envelope for deep-mixed soil-cement including tension

Stiffness

Young's modulus

A nonlinear stress-strain relationship is recommended for the deep-mixed soil-cement using Duncan and

Chang's (1970) hyperbolic model. The initial Young's modulus is assumed to be independent of confining

pressure. For these conditions, the hyperbolic model can be expressed by:

1

[3]

[4]

where Et = the tangent Young's modulus, Ei = the initial Young's modulus, Es = the secant Young's

modulus, Rf = the failure ratio, which controls the nonlinearity of the stress-strain response, and SL = the

stress level, which is the deviator stress divided by the deviator stress at failure. The influence of Rf on

modulus ratios and strain ratios that illustrate the extent of nonlinearity is shown in Fig. 3, where Rf = 0

corresponds to linear stress-strain response, and Rf = 1 corresponds to the full hyperbolic nonlinear

response.

831

2.0

20

1.5

15

1.0

10

f /50

Ei /E50

0.5

0.0

0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Rf

Fig. 3. Influence of Rf on nonlinearity in Duncan and Chang's (1970) hyperbolic model

For the penstock project, the typical value of the ratio of the strain at failure to the strain at 50% of UCS,

f /50, from UCS tests with local strain measurements is about six, which corresponds to an Rf value of 0.8

and an Ei /E50 value of 1.7, according to Fig. 3. The values of Ei from the tests were not always well

defined, perhaps due to the small strains involved, but an Ei /E50 value of 1.7 is reasonably consistent with

the data. Consequently, an Rf value of 0.8 is recommended.

Considerations involved in selecting a suitable value of Ei for the penstock project include:

1. Selection of the small-scale UCS, which is recommended to be in the range of 300 psi to 600 psi.

2. The ratio of E50 to UCS is about 625 for UCS tests from the project with local strain measurements.

3. According to data presented by Kitazume and Terashi (2013), long-term creep may contribute an

additional strain of 0.04% at 50% of the UCS. For the penstock project, the typical strain to 50% of

the UCS was about 0.08%. Therefore, the long-term modulus is reduced to about 67% of the shortterm modulus.

4. Data from Denies et al. (2014) indicate that no reduction in the large-scale Young's modulus is

necessary in comparison to Young's modulus values from small-scale tests, even though the reduction

in strength for large-scale tests is about 70% of the strength of small-scale tests according to data

presented by Kitazume and Terashi (2013) and Denies et al. (2014).

For the penstock project, the reduction in stiffness for creep is about 67%, while the reduction in strength

for large-scale effects is about the same at 70%, and it does not appear necessary to apply a reduction for

scale effects to stiffness. Consequently, a simple approach is to reduce the small-scale strength by a factor

of 0.7 to obtain the design strength, and retain the ratio of E50 to UCS at 625 from small-scale tests, but

apply this ratio to the reduced design UCS. With an Rf value of 0.8, the long-term Ei is (1.7)(625) = 1,000

times the design UCS, which is 2,000 times the design shear strength. As discussed previously, the

recommended design shear strengths range from 100 psi to 200 psi for small-scale UCS values of 300 to

600 psi, and the corresponding long-term values of Ei are 200,000 to 400,000 psi.

Poisson's ratio

Based on published values, a Poisson's ratio of 0.35 is recommended. Not enough is known about the

bulk modulus of soil-cement mixtures to recommend further refinement.

832

Specifications

To account for scale effects on strength, and thereby simultaneously account for long-term creep, the

design UCS (twice the design shear strength) should be multiplied by a factor of 1/0.7, which represents

an increase of approximately 50%. Thus, a design shear strength of 150 psi, which would correspond to a

design UCS of 300 psi, would result in a specified UCS of 450 psi.

Laboratory mixing and field mixing are not the same, and strength variability may be larger in the field

than in laboratory mixing. Deep mixing contractors generally use mixes that produce a higher strength in

the laboratory than specified for field mixing, often applying a factor of two or more. But that is generally

done when specifications require that a high percentage, e.g., 80% or 90%, of field-mixed specimens

equal or exceed the specified UCS.

For the penstock project, a different type of specification is appropriate because: (1) the objective is

deformation control, (2) the factor of safety against failure of the composite soil-cement support system

will be very high, and (3) the area replacement ratio will be very high, which will mitigate against

consequences of local variations in UCS. An appropriate specification for this project could, for example,

require (1) a median UCS equal to or larger than a selected value of specified strength in the range of 300

to 600 psi, with the particular value depending on analyses conducted to satisfy the design requirements,

(2) at least 80% or 90% of the measured UCS values should equal or exceed half of the specified UCS,

and (3) 80% or more recovery of mixed soil-cement should be achieved in every 5-ft core run. An

advantage of just specifying the UCS and core recovery requirements instead of also specifying modulus

and tensile strength requirements is that this approach simplifies the QC/QA and it reduces the burden on

the contractor.

Additional specification details will be developed as design proceeds. The GeoTechTools website

(www.geotechtools.org) includes a deep mixing guide specification, which can be adapted for the

penstock project and other deep mixing projects.

SUMMARY

This paper summarizes information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soil-cement, and

it provides the design recommendations that were developed for the penstock project described in the

introduction. A few of the key recommendations for the deep-mixed soil-cement on this project were that

(1) a curved strength envelope that includes tensile strength can be used in the analysis, (2) the stressstrain and strength properties can be characterized using Duncan and Chang's (1970) hyperbolic model,

and (3) a specification based on the median UCS value is appropriate.

REFERENCES

Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT). (2002). The Deep Mixing Method: Principle,

Design, and Construction. Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands.

Denies, N., Van Lysebetten, G., Huybrechts, N., De Cock, F., Lameire, B., Maertens, J., and Vervoort, A.

(2014). "Real-Scale Tests on Soil Mix Elements." Proc. Int. Conf. Piling & Deep Foundations,

Stockholm, Deep Foundations Institute, Hawthorne, NJ.

Duncan, J.M., and Chang, C-Y. (1970). Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils." J. of the Soil

Mechanics and Foundations Division, 96(5), 1629-1653.

833

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2013). Federal Highway Administration Design Manual:

Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support. Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-13-046, FHWA,

Washington D.C.

Filz, G., Adams, T., Navin, M., and Templeton, A.E. (2012). "Design of Deep Mixing for Support of

Levees and Floodwalls." Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Grouting and Deep Mixing, ASCE Geotechnical Special

Publication, GSP, 228, 89-133.

Filz, G.M., and Navin, M.P. (2010). A Practical Method to Account for Strength Variability of DeepMixed Ground. GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design, ASCE Geotechnical

Special Publication, GSP, 199, 2426-2433.

Hodges, D.K., Filz, G.M., and Weatherby, D.E. (2008). Laboratory Mixing, Curing, and Strength

Testing of Soil-Cement Specimens Applicable to the Wet Method of Deep Mixing. CGPR Report #48,

Virginia Tech Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research, Blacksburg, VA.

Japanese Geotechnical Society (JGS). (2000). Practice for Making and Curing Stabilized Soil Specimens

without Compaction. JGS T 0821-2000, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo, Japan.

Kitazume, M., and Terashi, M. (2013). The Deep Mixing Method. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The

Netherlands.

Larsson, S. (2005). State of practice report execution, monitoring and quality control. Proc. Int. Conf.

on Deep Mixing Best Practices and Recent Advances, (CD-ROM), Swedish Deep Stabilization Research

Centre, Linkoping.

Namikawa, T. and Koseki, J. (2007). Evaluation of tensile strength of cement-treated sand based on

several types of laboratory tests. Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, 47(4), 657-674.

Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y., Nishioka, S., and Okumura, R. (1996). Required strength of cement improved

ground. Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 1, 557-562.

Schaefer, V.R., Abramson, L.W., Drumheller, J.C., Hussin, J.D., and Sharp, K.D., eds. (1997). Ground

improvement, ground reinforcement, and ground treatment: Developments 1987 to 1997. ASCE

Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP, 69, 130-150.

Terashi, M., Tanaka, H., Mitsumoto, T., Niidome, Y., and Honma, S. (1980). Fundamental properties of

lime and cement treated soils (2nd Report). Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, 19(1),

33-62 (in Japanese).

Topolniki, M. (2012). Presented as part of a short course on deep mixing, as summarized by Denies, N.

and Van Lysebetten, G. (2012), "Summary of the Short Courses of the IS-GI 2012, Latest Advances in

Deep Mixing." Proc. Int. Sym. Ground Improvement, ISSMGE TC-211, Brussels.

Vervoot, A., Tavallai, A., Van Lysebetten, G., Maertens, J., Denies, N., Huybrechts, N., De Cock, F., and

Lameire, B. (2012). "Mechanical characterization of large scale soil mix samples and the analysis of the

influence of soil inclusions." Proc. Int. Sym. Ground Improvement, ISSMGE TC-211, Brussels.

834

- compositesUploaded bylakshmigsr6610
- 105-s55Uploaded byTianSing Ng
- Effect of a Retaining Wall Supported Berm on the Stability of Tailings DamUploaded bypotasher
- 1Uploaded bysancloud
- A 072815Uploaded byMudassir Ali
- NZS 3404-1997 Example 001Uploaded byAnitha Hassan Kabeer
- Cohesive strength of clay‐rich sedimentUploaded byDavid John Marcus
- Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Under Monotonic LoadsUploaded bynikhilarora1988
- TerramechanicsUploaded byDavid Donoso
- A Simple Seismic Performance Assessment Technique for Unreinforced Brick Masonry Structures [Tuğla Yığma Yapılar Için Basit Bir Deprem Performansı Değerlendirme Yöntemi]Uploaded byÇağrı KARABİLLİOĞLU
- Slope PaperUploaded bypleyvaze
- TriaxialTestUploaded byNani Tirumalasetti
- ABB_Manual_10E_01_print_03.pdfUploaded byosmpot
- Analysis Manual MasonryUploaded byhahaer
- Assignment 1Uploaded bySupratim Bhattacharjee
- UBC_1966_A7 B9Uploaded byjames_frank
- Vane Shear Test_lab ManualUploaded byAminul Haque
- Exercise Set 6.2.pdfUploaded byAshebir Asrat
- Strength of Materials - WikiversityUploaded bybino
- 1-s2.0-S2352012417300607-mainUploaded byDiego Velasco
- Shan SepUploaded byZine L Del
- ShearCapacityofRCMembraneElementsSubjectedtoPureIn-PlaneShearStressesUploaded byLucas Marques
- Dijkstra 2009-Numerical Simulation of Pile Installation in SandUploaded byMiguel Regalado
- PVC StrengthUploaded byzamirksa70
- Bbm Shear StrengthUploaded byAla Thajil
- comportamiento del concreto prereforzado biaxialUploaded byKaren AS
- 1-s2.0-S026382231300175X-mainUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- 81-84.pptxUploaded byanon_216692312
- BluestoneDelaware2017Paper4-3-17Uploaded byRafael
- Module 4.pdfUploaded bySubhankar Dey

- Stability019b MartelUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- AlgeriaUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- 83_145_MiTo_604.38.270_EN_02_07.10_L_LGUploaded byAlexandru Stoian
- 1-s2.0-S1877705816304465-mainUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- Design Risk of Ground Improvement Methods Including Rigid Inclusions W.wehr M. Topolnicki W.sondermann 2012 (1)Uploaded byanar
- Installation Effects of Lime-cement ColumnsUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- 083b-Filz1Uploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- Laboratory MethodsUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- Fundamental AspectsUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- 31-26EiUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- Deep Soil MixingUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- Keller-Liquefaction Potential Around Pile FoundationsUploaded bynumspy
- Ground Improvement Using Soil–Cement ColumnsUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- Analysis of Strength Development in Soft Clay StabilizedUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- bibliografieUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir
- ABCUploaded byCristina Andreea Bitir

- Positive Displacement PumpsUploaded byengkhalood
- Shrotri Kshitij N 200808 PhDUploaded bysandykale10
- 160951394-Centrifugal-Pumps (1).pdfUploaded byNovancy
- LAB6-TUBULAR FLOW REACTORUploaded byNurtasha Atikah
- 20522_ftpUploaded byMehmet Sorgun
- Theory of Elasticity and Stability (5)Uploaded byAmit Thoriya
- Nano Tema1 %5bModo de compatibilidad%5dUploaded byblasmoca
- Civil2013v3_1_ReleaseNoteUploaded byEdward van Martino
- Lesjöfors springUploaded byaleaubr
- AWS100_WS_06-1Uploaded byTA Dinh Xuan
- catenaryUploaded bySubhrajit Bhattacharya
- chapter 7 chemical reactionsUploaded byapi-30718309
- Horizontal DistanceUploaded byAhmad Zaky
- 389H_NO_01_intro_F2014Uploaded byAbdulHakeemSK
- Theory of Relativity and Analytic Dynamics Handwritten NotesUploaded byAnees Ur Rehman
- Friction Welding, Explosive WeldingUploaded byASHUTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTWA
- Notes on Environmental PhysicsUploaded byRameshkumar Ramanathan
- 1-s2.0-S0959652615002450-mainUploaded byLiliana Patrícia Abreu
- CrmUploaded bydreambestfriend
- Unit+3+Revision+PowerpointUploaded byMahesh Tammineni
- DEM Simulation of Flow of Granular Particles on an Inclined Plane in LIGGGHTSUploaded byBharat Bajaj
- lithosphere hazard compressedUploaded byapi-323848578
- ME2134-1 Lab Manual (Stability of Floating Body)Uploaded bydasdas
- Lecture 6 -- Synthesis of NanomaterialsUploaded bykannankriv
- Dynamic Depressuring - A Practical Guide(Revised)Uploaded byhcj322
- Wulff ConstructionsUploaded bySerranias de Arte
- C-23 LIFE CYCLE OF PROCESS PLANTS.pdfUploaded bynike_y2k
- Fluid FrictionUploaded byChandni Seelochan
- Characterisation of Composite Materials in Railways for Structural CalculationsUploaded bytasos
- 10- S.Y.B.Sc. PhysicsUploaded byshrreyak